Actually, I don't remember. Maybe because KF's Caribbean Tard is something that interferes directly with phylogenetically older parts of the human brain. It just excites some automatic defense and escape reflexes and doesn't really get to the thinking parts of the brain.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

I have recently read in a darwinist site an unilateral critic by someone to my affirmations about uniform distribution in the search space of proteins. This unilateral critic, of whom I was naturally not aware until by chance I read his post following, for other reasons, a link from here, argued that I was wrong in assuming an uniform, or quasi uniform, distribution, because an evolutionary search does not work that way, but works with what already exists, and the sequences near an existing functional protein are extremely likely, while most other sequences have amost zero probability to occur.

You seem miffed that your "unilateral critic" posted his critique here instead of confronting you at UD. Do you wonder why? Think about it. (Hint: Zachriel used to post at UD, and then "something" happened. Ask Clive -- he seems to be developing a taste for that "something".)

So Zachriel can't engage you there, but you and other ID supporters are more than welcome to comment here, where we don't censor the people who disagree with us. The moderators might even set you up with your own thread. They've done so for other ID supporters.

How about it?

As an added bonus, it'll be easier to search the archives for your name since you'll already be here.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

'Pooch pontificates. He thinks (in other than his most optimistic moments) the evidence regarding a flowing of culture in classical Greece is weak, and is very unclear on ancient Egypt:

Quote

Regarding History, I certainly believe that there was a Battle of Gettysburg, and in my most optimistic moments I am also convinced that there was a great flowering of culture in classical Greece (although ancient Egypt already starts giving me real trouble…), but I don’t share the faith and assurance which most people seem to have that we really know much about those things, or that what we know is reliable. I often think that, as it is really so difficult to agree about what really happened last year, the only reason we feel that we understand ancient History is because, thanks probably to God’s grace, we know too little about it.

The same is probably true about biology, and scientific knowledge in general. Up to now, we really knew too little. But now we are starting to understand “a little bit more”.

And, as another author I very much love has written, a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

I still think you should give it a try.

(So much for all that design detection on Barry's stone circles and arrowheads. Those big fucking pyramids are giving gpuccio trouble.)

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I have recently read in a darwinist site an unilateral critic by someone to my affirmations about uniform distribution in the search space of proteins. This unilateral critic, of whom I was naturally not aware until by chance I read his post following, for other reasons, a link from here, argued that I was wrong in assuming an uniform, or quasi uniform, distribution, because an evolutionary search does not work that way, but works with what already exists, and the sequences near an existing functional protein are extremely likely, while most other sequences have amost zero probability to occur.

You seem miffed that your "unilateral critic" posted his critique here instead of confronting you at UD. Do you wonder why? Think about it. (Hint: Zachriel used to post at UD, and then "something" happened. Ask Clive -- he seems to be developing a taste for that "something".)

So Zachriel can't engage you there, but you and other ID supporters are more than welcome to comment here, where we don't censor the people who disagree with us. The moderators might even set you up with your own thread. They've done so for other ID supporters.

How about it?

Thanks for the heads up, keiths. Well, gpuccio. We know you're watching. How about leaving the protective embrace of Uncommon Descent, and engaging the issue?

--------------Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.Member AMF, Angelic Motive ForcePushing planets on celestial spheres â€” one epoch at a time.

'Pooch pontificates. He thinks (in other than his most optimistic moments) the evidence regarding a flowing of culture in classical Greece is weak, and is very unclear on ancient Egypt:

Quote

Regarding History, I certainly believe that there was a Battle of Gettysburg, and in my most optimistic moments I am also convinced that there was a great flowering of culture in classical Greece (although ancient Egypt already starts giving me real trouble…), but I don’t share the faith and assurance which most people seem to have that we really know much about those things, or that what we know is reliable. I often think that, as it is really so difficult to agree about what really happened last year, the only reason we feel that we understand ancient History is because, thanks probably to God’s grace, we know too little about it.

The same is probably true about biology, and scientific knowledge in general. Up to now, we really knew too little. But now we are starting to understand “a little bit more”.

And, as another author I very much love has written, a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

I still think you should give it a try.

(So much for all that design detection on Barry's stone circles and arrowheads. Those big fucking pyramids are giving gpuccio trouble.)

Yes well, Yahweh The Intelligent Designer probably poofed them into existence designed them last Thursday sometime after the flood to trick people so they'll go to Hell test our faith design detectors.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Another property, if we accept the Popperian view, is falsifiability. Well, I must emphasize again that all the “negative” tests I have suggested are potential ways to falsify my view: in other words, if and when you will produce a machine which freely generates consciousness and CSI as the human brain is supposed to do, you will have falsified my assumption that machines cannot do that, and that a transcendental I is necessary to have that result.

gpuccio, you need to come over and explain something. When someone comes up with a super-duper machine that supposedly does all that, how would you check empirically whether it “freely generates consciousness and CSI”?

This looks like it could have come straight from a Chick tract, but no, it's from a PowerPoint presentation called What Does Calculus Have to Do With Christianity? on Galapagos Finch's website. Besides falling for Pascal's Wager, it looks like Gloppy doesn't know the difference between a Venn diagram and a payoff matrix:

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

This looks like it could have come straight from a Chick tract, but no, it's from a PowerPoint presentation called What Does Calculus Have to Do With Christianity? on Galapagos Finch's website. Besides falling for Pascal's Wager, it looks like Gloppy doesn't know the difference between a Venn diagram and a payoff matrix:

When you do something that really amuses you but you're only half awake.

bummer.

Well, it would have been funny...

sorry Mark

In what may be the last LOLCat of 2008, HA HA THIS IS YOU

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Atom: The Ev program uses what is called an “oracle” that gives it information about the search space.

Well, duh. We have a population of virtual organisms, competing in a virtual environment. The Oracle is a blackbox that provides feedback on the relative fitness of the organisms within that virtual environment. Of course the Oracle provides information, in the form of a fitness valuation.

Atom: The Ev program uses what is called an “oracle” that gives it information about the search space.

Well, duh. We have a population of virtual organisms, competing in a virtual environment. The Oracle is a blackbox that provides feedback on the relative fitness of the organisms within that virtual environment. Of course the Oracle provides information, in the form of a fitness valuation.

So, Marks and Dembski have discovered that organisms can and do evolve in response to the environment. It's amazing!!

Using Dembskian terminology:

Environment = "Oracle of Active Information"

Environmental Information -> NS -> genome

-> specified complexity

What could be simpler (or more obvious, even to the tardulous)?

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

We have a population of virtual organisms, competing in a virtual environment. The Oracle is a blackbox that provides feedback on the relative fitness of the organisms within that virtual environment. Of course the Oracle provides information, in the form of a fitness valuation... So, Marks and Dembski have discovered that organisms can and do evolve in response to the environment. It's amazing!!

Onlookers, how many even basic proofs in Geometry can effectively be presented in 200 words in a context where challenge is likely? As noted previously, that is the length of a synopsis that needs immediately present backup, not a serious case. Or, why do corporate presentations not simply stop at the Executive Summary? or, why is it often said that "the devil is in the details"?

KF, it's not just the length of your comments. It's the absurdly low ratio of useful content to bulk. People might be willing to wade through your verbal hemorrhages if they packed a rhetorical punch or delivered novel information and insights, but all that readers get for their efforts are repetitive arguments and verbal preening.

For example, what purpose does the following sentence serve that isn't purely masturbatory?

Quote

The effect in the end of the substance of 156 (as, in the end, a capstone to several substantial comments and one outstanding one at 21) — whatever real or perceived defects one may find in style or length — speaks for itself.

The reason people hate your long comments, KF, is that they feel cheated after reading them.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

I enjoy this opening paragraph of the article to which his name links on UD:

Quote

INTRODUCTION: The raging controversy over inference to design, sadly, too often puts out more heat and blinding, noxious smoke than light. (Worse, some of the attacks to the man and to strawman misrepresentations of the actual technical case for design [and even of the basic definition of design theory] that have now become a routine distracting rhetorical resort and public relations spin tactic of too many of the defenders of the evolutionary materialist paradigm, show that this resort to poisoning the atmosphere of the discussion is in some quarters quite deliberately intended to rhetorically blunt the otherwise plainly telling force of the mounting pile of evidence and issues that make the inference to design a very live contender indeed.)

You got to admire a paragraph that is 90% parenthetical (and 10% [nested parenthetical]) and 100% twisty little passages, all alike.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

I enjoy this opening paragraph of the article to which his name links on UD:

Quote

INTRODUCTION: The raging controversy over inference to design, sadly, too often puts out more heat and blinding, noxious smoke than light. (Worse, some of the attacks to the man and to strawman misrepresentations of the actual technical case for design [and even of the basic definition of design theory] that have now become a routine distracting rhetorical resort and public relations spin tactic of too many of the defenders of the evolutionary materialist paradigm, show that this resort to poisoning the atmosphere of the discussion is in some quarters quite deliberately intended to rhetorically blunt the otherwise plainly telling force of the mounting pile of evidence and issues that make the inference to design a very live contender indeed.)

You got to admire a paragraph that is 90% parenthetical (and 10% [nested parenthetical]) and 100% twisty little passages, all alike.

Somebody should create a KF parody account at UD and call themselves "tl;dr."

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Man, good to be back. My little vacation was fun but it was too busy. Drove down to lakeland Friday night. The GF and I went to see Avenue Q in Clearwater on Friday night (very funny. And I think "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" is one of my new favorite songs. That or "The Internet is for Porn"). Wesley was in Clearwater and I wanted to call him but we were overbooked. We didn't get back to Lakeland until midnight as it is. Next day we visited 3 of her relatives and missed a 4th, went to see the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed college her ex-hubby and sister attended, (cool-looking but Wright was kind of a bonehead about concrete and the thing's crumbling to pieces) walked around the entire Lake Mirror Promenade (nice neo classical architecture, but with a jarring huge modernist sculpture on one side), and we saw one of the ducks (i think) with the little poof on it's head that apparently is from a mutation that arose in Lakeland. Then through Hollis Gardens where two separate weddings were occurring, then walked next door to Texas Cattle Company where I had one of the best steaks of my life. Then a 24 hr Starbucks, then crashed, then drove back here this morning.

...and we saw one of the ducks (i think) with the little poof on it's head...

Goddidit!

You know it my friend. Obviously the mutation is not evolution because

1 It's just microevolution2 It's just the destruction of the information "how not to have a poof on your head"3 You didn't personally witness that the mutation's cause was randometc etc probably several more dumb things.

I'm glad I'm not kairosfocus. Conveying the above information would have taken him a post the size of a New Yorker article on the comprehensive history of China.